Search

Background:  Hearing aid verification is required to objectively measure hearing aid outputs by ensuring that the amplified speech spectrum closely approximates the prescription goals., Objectives:  This study aimed to determine audiologists' perceptions and practices regarding hearing aid verification and identify facilitators and barriers to its use., Method:  A cross-sectional national e-survey included questions related to demographics, perceptions of verification, verification practices and two open-ended questions regarding the facilitators and barriers to conducting hearing aid verification in South Africa., Results:  Seventy-eight South African audiologists, with experience ranging from less than a year to 34 years, completed the online survey. Of these, 76.3% conduct hearing aid verification, while 23.7% seldom or never perform this verification. Among the audiologists who conducted verification, 81.0% reported performing it on both adults and children. More than three-quarters (86.6%) indicated that they conduct verification only during the initial fitting, while half (53.8%) do so only when a problem arises. Thematic analysis revealed the following barriers to verification: improper equipment, a lack of equipment, non-standard clinical practices and time constraints., Conclusion:  There are several challenges faced by South African audiologists in performing verification. It may be feasible to address these barriers by raising awareness about the value of verification, offering training, and advocating for the purchase and utilisation of verification equipment.Contribution: This study's findings provide information on the current practices of hearing aid verification in a socioeconomically diverse setting. Furthermore, it highlights important challenges such as a lack of equipment as well as time constraints.

Objective: The study aimed to explore facilitators and barriers in delivering person-centered care from the perspective of speech-language pathologists and audiologists in a socio- economically diverse workplace across micro, meso, and macro levels., Method: A national cross-sectional e-survey was conducted among pooled speech-language pathologists and/or audiologists from South Africa. The e-survey included quantitative components to describe participant demographics which was analysed using descriptive and inferential statistics. The qualitative data was analyzed using metaphor and thematic analysis approaches to describe respondents' perspectives of barriers and facilitators in delivering person-centered care., Results: The e-survey was completed by 63 clinicians (36.5% Audiologists; 36.5% Speech-Language Therapists; 27.0% dually qualified Speech-Language Therapists and Audiologists) mostly between the ages of 26 to 35 years old (33.3%). Respondents were working in various settings including the public sector (41.3%), private sector (44.4%) and in academia (14.3%). Facilitators and barriers were identified within all three systems (macro, meso and micro). The metaphor analysis resulted in six categories: uncertainty of Person centered care; its essential nature; associated challenges; relational aspect; analogies referring to animals; and food-related analogies. Thematic analysis of open-ended questions revealed five barriers, with three relating to micro systems; i) clinician factors, ii) client factors, iii) clinician and client interaction, and two related to factors within the meso system; iv) resources, and v) workplace. Only two themes were identified as facilitators towards PCC, clinician factors (mirco) and workplace factors (meso).', Conclusions: Insights gained from exploring Speech-Language Pathologists' and Audiologists' perceptions of implementing PCC in a socio-economically diverse setting highlight the need to address contextual (meso and macro systems) and personal (micro system) factors to promote and deliver PCC effectively. Notably, for the public sector, resources emerged as a major concern and barrier on the macro system level. Despite these challenges, the investigation revealed two noteworthy facilitators: clinician factors, at the micro level, and workplace factors, at the meso level. This nuanced understanding emphasizes the necessity of tailored interventions targeting both individual and systemic aspects to enhance the successful implementation of person-centered care., Practical Implications: Strategies should focus on enhancing clinicians' communication skills, collaboration, and teamwork, as well as addressing resource limitations through the adaptation of tools and implementation of PCC ISO standards., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To determine the perceived satisfaction and understanding of hearing assessment feedback, using the Ida My Hearing Explained Tool (IMHET), compared to the standard audiogram reported by adult clients and audiologists., Design: This study is a mixed-method design comparing clients and audiologists' perceptions through a single-blinded, randomised control trial and focus group discussions. After using either the audiogram or IMHET for feedback, clients and audiologists completed the adapted Patient Satisfaction Questionnaire (PSQ)., Study Sample: During client's initial audiological consultations, audiologists provided hearing assessment feedback (Total = 51) using the IMHET or audiogram . Twenty-seven clients and seven audiologists participated in focus groups, and/or open-ended questions., Results: Satisfaction was not significantly different ( p  > 0.05) between the IMHET (76.18; SD : 2.66) or audiogram (75.63; SD : 4.73) for the overall PSQ scores reported by clients and audiologists. Two shared main themes, understanding and satisfaction, were identified for both tools from the focus groups and open-ended questions. A third main theme, recommendations, was identified only for the IMHET., Conclusions: The IMHET is a valuable resource for clients during hearing assessment feedback. Audiologists recommend that the audiogram be used as a supplement when using the IMHET to provide feedback.